Needing More War News, NBC Analyzes Impending War with China

Here's the military-industrial-news-media complex hard at work today, focused on the western flank.  I'm smelling the stink of military manufacturers frightening and corrupting politicians in order to procure more orders for weapons. And why not float the idea of a two-front war with two nuclear armed adversaries, one of whom manufactures much of America's high tech goods?  Trump is mostly out of the news these days than to drum up more warmongering? This will allow NBC to sell more commercials and thus enjoy some largess too.

Caitlin Johnson comments at her website:

NBC's Meet the Press just aired an absolutely freakish segment in which the influential narrative management firm Center for a New American Security (CNAS) ran war games simulating a direct US hot war with China. . . .

As we've discussed previously, citing war machine-funded think tanks as expert analysis without even disclosing their financial conflict of interest is plainly journalistic malpractice. But it happens all the time in the mass media anyway, because the mass media exist to circulate propaganda, not journalism.

This is getting so, so crazy. That the mass media are now openly teaming up with war machine think tanks to begin seeding the normalization of a hot war with China into the minds of the public indicates that the propaganda campaign to manufacture consent for the US-centralized empire's final Hail Mary grab at unipolar domination is escalating even further. The mass-scale psychological manipulation is getting more and more overt and more and more shameless.

Continue ReadingNeeding More War News, NBC Analyzes Impending War with China

The Mass Media’s Distorted Lens When It Decides Who to Blame for Mass Murders

Mass murderers often follow various public personalities and causes. Sometimes, they commit their mass murders in the name of those public personalities and causes. Who is to blame when that happens? It depends on whether news outlets approve of the personality or the cause. Glenn Greenwald explains in an article titled "The Demented - and Selective - Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings: All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground." Here is an excerpt:

To be sure, there have been a large number of murders and other atrocities carried out in U.S. and the West generally in the name of right-wing ideologies, in the name of white supremacy, in the name of white nationalism. The difference, though, is glaring: when murders are carried out in the name of liberal ideology, there is a rational and restrained refusal to blame liberal pundits and politicians who advocate the ideology that animated those killings. Yet when killings are carried out in the name of right-wing ideologies despised by the corporate press and mainstream pundits (or ideologies that they falsely associate with conservatism), they instantly leap to lay blame at the feet of their conservative political opponents who, despite never having advocated or even implied the need for violence, are nonetheless accused of bearing guilt for the violence — often before anything is known about the killers or their motives.

In general, it is widely understood that liberal pundits and politicians are not to blame, at all, when murders are carried out in the name of the causes they support or against the enemies they routinely condemn. That is because, in such cases, we apply the rational framework that someone who does not advocate violence is not responsible for the violent acts of one's followers and fans who kill in the name of that person's ideas.

Indeed, this perfectly sensible principle was enshrined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1982 unanimous free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. That case arose out of efforts by the State of Mississippi to hold leaders of the local NAACP chapter legally liable for violence carried out by NAACP members on the ground that the leaders’ inflammatory and rage-driven speeches had “incited” and “provoked” their followers to burn white-owned stores and other stores ignoring their boycott to the ground. In ruling in favor of the NAACP, the Court stressed the crucial difference between those who peacefully advocate ideas and ideologies, even if they do so with virulence and anger (such as NAACP leaders), and those who are “inspired” by those speeches to commit violence to advance that cause. “To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment,” ruled the Court.

This principle is not only a jurisprudential or constitutional one. It is also a rational one. Those who express ideas without advocating violence are not and cannot fairly be held responsible for those who decide to pick up arms in the name of those ideas, even if — as in the case of James Hodgkinson — we know for certain that the murderer listened closely to and was influenced by people like Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders. In such cases, we understand that it is madness, and deeply unfair, to exploit heinous murders to lay blame for the violence and killings on the doorsteps of our political adversaries. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Mass Media’s Distorted Lens When It Decides Who to Blame for Mass Murders

Another Science Website Falls Over the Cliff by Rejecting “the Sex Binary”

This time it's a website called The Scientist.

The thesis of this article is the equivalent of saying that "because clownfish," a human animal can change its biological sex from male to female (or female to male) and to any of many unspecified "sexes" between. The article ends by saying "If you don't publicly proclaim that [the sun revolves around the earth] or [water boils at 150 degrees F] or [tectonic plates are made of cheese], you are a bigot.

I keep thinking back to the religious fundamentalists who developed numerous unhinged theological theories ("tennis without a net") because they were not willing to face the fact that  we are human animals (and see here). The false idea that we are "blank slates" has dominated large swaths of academia for years, especially in departments of education and social work. I believe this false belief has now enabled modern gender ideology.

A much more fruitful approach to understanding human complexity would be to admit that one's body is what it is. In a biological male, for instance, every one of the trillions of cells contains an XY (in the female sex, an XX). Here is a straight-forward explanation for why there are two (and only two) sexes.  An entirely separate issue from the biology is how a human animal expresses himself (or herself).

I have no problem with any human adult choosing how to express themself, choosing how to use their body, who to spend time with, how to use or change one's physical appearance or how to involve anyone else in these activities, assuming everyone consents. What I'm against is the increasingly popular notion, reinforced by formerly respectable "science" publications, that we can pretend that our underlying biology is other than what it is. Nature doesn't care about what we think. It is what it is. What anyone chooses to do with their primate body is totally up to them. But let's not conflate what kind of biological body one has with how one chooses to change its appearance or use it.

Continue ReadingAnother Science Website Falls Over the Cliff by Rejecting “the Sex Binary”

Congress is Pollyannaish on War

Who could possibly be against financial oversight? And what about additional oversight into how this mountain of weapons will be used next year or five years from now, and against whom? At a time of skyrocketing inflation, Congress wants to spend money that we will be forced to borrow or print out of thin air based on sloganeering, but it is afraid to ask hard questions in public. If I took out a car loan today, I would be asked a hell of a lot more questions then Congress is asking itself.

Over this century, we have a clear track record for coddling our military contractors, pouring weapons and military into conflicts that have little to do with American interests in the absence of any metric of success, eventually slinking out of that shattered country, having depleted our treasury, thereby permanently losing opportunities to address the needs of our own citizens. Has anyone considered how angry we were when we (falsely) accused the Russians of offering bounty for the killing of US troops in Afghanistan? Our leaders are now bragging that they were instrumental in killing a dozen Russian Generals and sinking a Russian warship. Why would we not think that there will be blowback to this, perhaps in the form of Russian funding of terrorist acts against the US or in the form of nuclear annihilation? Why won't Congress discuss any of these issues in public?

Continue ReadingCongress is Pollyannaish on War

Social Workers at Portland State University Attempt to Educate Former Professor Peter Boghossian on Campus “Safety” and “Gender”

Following the unexpected cancellation of his "Reverse Q&A" at Brown University, philosophy professor Peter Boghossian (who recently resigned from his post at Portland State) created an ad hoc event on the streets of Portland. He was attempting to explore the reasoning behind agreement or disagreement with the claim: "There are only two genders." He was approached by a group of social work students who attempted to educate him about campus safety and the meaning of gender.

Continue ReadingSocial Workers at Portland State University Attempt to Educate Former Professor Peter Boghossian on Campus “Safety” and “Gender”